a state of things as he has supposed can ever possibly occur. Others meet the case more gravely. Assuming that the same substance may, at different times, enter into and become essential parts of the bodies of different men, they say that in the resurrection, this substance can not enter into both of the bodies that once had it in possession. Hence, it is physically impossible for each to recover his own peculiar body; and therefore there lies this physical impossibility against the doctrine of the resurrection. We shall be able to weigh more exactly the force of this objection if we first consider the circumstances under which this alleged complication of the elemental parts of human bodies is said to occur. The case has been instanced where grain, raised upon a field enriched by the blood of man slain in battle, is eaten; or where the decaying bodies of men have nourished vegetables, which were afterward eaten by other men; or where the bodies of men drowned in the sea selves can perform. David was as positive that his master could not restore his cup as unbelievers are that it is incredible God should raise the dead; and ho had as much appearance of reason on his side as they. If a human body, dead, crumbles into dust, and mingles with the earth, or with the water of the sea, so as to be discernible no more, so the silver cup was dissolved into parts invisible, and mingled with the mass of aquafortis. It is not then easy to be conceived, that as a man has wisdom and power enough to bring these parts of the silver to be visible again, and to reduce them to a cup as before, so God, the Maker of heaven and earth, must have wisdom and power enough to bring the parts of a dissolved human body together, and to form them into a human body again! What though David could not restore his own cup? Was that a reason that no man could do it? And when his master had promised to restore it, what though David could not possibly conjecture by what method his master would do it? This was no proof that his master was at a loss for a method. So, though men can not raise the dead, yet God, who is infinitely wiser and stronger, can. And though we can not find out the method by which he will do this yet we are sure that he who at first took the dust of the ground, and formed it into the body of man, can, with the same ease, take the dust into which my body shall be dissolved and form it into a human body again. Nay, even if a body be burnt, and consumed by fire, the parts of that body are no more really lost than the invisible particles of the dissolved cup. As David, then, was wrong in thinking that it was impossible for his master to restore his cup, it must be at least equally wrong for us to think it impossible that God should raise the dead." ww have been eaten by fishes, and those fishes afterward caught and eaten; or still again, where men have fallen into the hands of cannibals and been devoured by them, and thus their flesh enters directly into the composition of other bodies. We can not answer this objection more conclusively than is done by Dr. Kingsley, in his little work on the "Resurrection of the Dead;" and, therefore, without adhering closely to the language, we adopt, substantially, his argument. Let us take up the case where vegetation, raised upon soil enriched by the decomposition of a human body, is used for the nourishment of human beings. Here, at the outset, we are met by the fact that a very small part of the earth at all enters into the composition of vegetable existence. This is easy of demonstration. It has again and again been shown, from actual experiment, that if plants or trees be set in pots or urns, and the dirt to which their roots have access weighed, the tree may increase many pounds, while the dirt, if carefully shaken from the roots and weighed, will be found to be diminished only a few ounces. Based upon this fact, we have a calculation furnished to our hand. "Suppose a human being to have eaten grain-in quantity, say one hundred pounds-that had grown upon soil enriched by a human body. Now, not more than one twenty-fifth part of this grain—that is, four pounds ever becomes actually a part of the human body. But not more than one twentieth part of the grain at first was converted earth; and thus not more than one-fifth of one pound in the hundred is incorporated into the body of the person who has eaten it. And, again, probably not more than one thousandth part of the earth absorbed by the roots of the grain could ever have been human dust. This must be a large estimate. The result, then, would be See pp. 36-39. that of the one hundred pounds of grain eaten, not more than one five-thousandth, or one three-hundred-and-twelfth part of an ounce of matter, could thus be transferred from one body to another. And strong probabilities exist against the transfer of even this small amount. But suppose it to have been actually transferred, a large portion of this small fraction of an ounce would certainly go to the grosser parts of the system, not at all necessary to the resurrection body; and might not the whole be directed in the same way?" Or, again, why may not this small part of human dust, absorbed by the growing grain, be lodged in the roots, the stalk, or the calyxes, without ever becoming a part of the kernel? Thus the objection, when subjected to severe scrutiny, becomes absolutely void. But let us take the case which the objector regards as his stronghold—that of cannibalism. With reference to the cannibal himself, this kind of food with him was exceedingly rare, and formed but a very small fraction of his food; and then, again, but a small fraction of this fraction can become a part of his body. This small fraction, it is not at all inconsistent to suppose, may be directed to the coarser parts of the body-those parts that shall not enter into the composition of the resurrection body; or if the inquiry relate to the victim, and it is inquired, "How shall he recover his body which has been devoured by another?" it must be observed, that, in all such cases of cannibalism, there are large portions of the body, such as the skull and bones, that are not thus eaten. And, indeed, if the whole body were eaten, the parts essential to the resurrection body might still, as we have already seen, be guarded by the special workings of Divine Providence, or even by an established, yet undiscovered law of nature, which forbids the commingling of that portion of our body, or that essence of our physical nature essential to our bod ily identity, thus preserving through all transformations, as well as through all time, our physical as well as mental individuality. This latter idea is of great force-especially when we remember that the blood as well as some other parts of our system are entirely devoid of any nourishing quality, and can not, therefore, be incorporated by the ordinary process of taking and digesting food into any other. system. Viewed, then, simply as a matter of rational inquiry, the objection is obviously specious and groundless. It is unsustained by either fact or science. But when we look at the subject in the light of revelation, and observe that it is a question of God's miraculous power and determination, who shall set limits to his skill or bound his power? If he has decreed that "the dead shall be raised and we be changed," can he not so guard the elements of which our bodies are composed that the grand purpose of his wisdom shall be accomplished? The objection is based upon that essential infidelity that would circumscribe the power of God by the cavils of an unbelieving heart. V. IT IS OBJECTED, ALSO, THAT AS THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY IMPLIES THE RAISING UP THE SAME BODY THAT DIED, THERE WOULD BE A WIDE DIVERSITY AMONG THE RESURRECTION BODIES. Some would be young, others old; some fresh and beautiful, others deformed and repulsive; some healthful and vigorous, others wasted and ghastly. The great proportion die of wasting diseases or of old age, so that the body that goes into the grave is a mere skeleton-shriveled, ghastly, repulsive. As the true anastasis implies the standing-up again, it must be the resurrection of that which lay downthat is, the very body that went into the grave. And this is commonly the worst, the most unsightly and repulsive body possessed by the individual during all his life. Hence, if a literal resurrection is to take place, it would bring forth the most motley as well as the most repulsive assemblage of human beings that ever met the eye. To all such cavilers we have one reply: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor yet the power of God." (Matt. xxii, 29.) In that glorious resurrection our bodies shall come forth-not as they now are not as they went down into the grave—but like unto the glorious body of Jesus Christ. Though all the elements essential to bodily identity rise, yet shall they be changed. The mortal and the corruptible shall be purged away: "Those bodies that corrupted fell, Shall incorrupt arise, And mortal forms shall spring to life, But St. Paul meets this objection and solves this difficulty. He tells us that not as it went down into the grave does the resurrected body of the righteous come up in the resurrection. "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural [animal] body, it is raised a spiritual body." (1 Cor. xv, 42 44.) It is sown an animal body-opa xixò that is, says Dr. Gregory, "a body which previously existed with all the organs, faculties, and propensities requisite to procure, receive, and appropriate nutriment, as well as to perpetuate the species; but it shall be raised a spiritual body, refined from the dregs of matter, utterly impermeable by every thing which communicates 'pain,'* freed from the organs and senses required only in its former state, and probably possessing the remaining senses in greater perfec *"Neither shall there be any more pain." (Rev. xxi, 4.) The Greek word, Tóvos, here translated pain, comprehends toil, fatigue, and excessive labor of body, as well as vexation and anguish of spirit. |